GM has joined John Deer stating you do not own your own car

This insures I will not buy a new GM while they hold this attitiude

http://boingboing.net/2015/05/21/gm-says-you-dont-own-your-ca.html

Snopes has nothing about it yet

No need for Snopes, they'd been leaning this way already so it shouldn't be a surprise.

I think the only GM I'd buy if I had the money is a 'vette...and maybe a Camaro.

So does that mean anything computer related is under lifetime warranty and gets free updates? What about when they stop supporting that version of the software and something computer related breaks outside of the warranty period? Say electric steering ECU? Is the car now junk? I'm glad I now have a Miata again. I love the driving purity of that thing.

If they're following the John Deere example, you still have to pay to fix the computer stuff you don't own...you just have to pay the manufacturer whatever they charge instead of having it done by a 3rd party (or yourself) who reverse-engineered the system like a filthy cybercriminal.

So no more HP tuner studio?

No more engine swaps unless its a GM crate standalone?

No more GM for me...wait, I would never buy GM in the first place.

How many people own their car anyway (outside of this crowd)? Most are owned by the bank or the leasing company.

This is what happens when you allow corporations to run the country.

While this article is a little overblown, it is essentially accurate. This issue actually goes far beyond GM and John Deere. This issue comes up for any vehicle with a programmable ECU and third party software that is designed to read or alter it's settings.

I have some free software on my laptop that allows me full access to the ECU in my 2010 Triumph Bonneville. I can read and reset CEL codes, turn off certain features and change the fuel map for the injection, etc. There was some controversy a while back because the newest models, and some said bikes that were returning to dealers for service, received a firmware update that encrypted the ECU so only the dealers could access. I think the software was ultimately able to compensate, but same issue...

Dumb, give it a while and someone will take it to court and they will find it unconstitutional just like the whole bmw/Mercedes dealer repairs only monopoly.

Interestingly, I've read that it might even be the government that is pushing vehicle makers into this stance. The EPA and probably other agencies don't want us consumers able to do things like turn off certain emissions features or alter fuel economy. They seem to threaten manufacturers who don't lock that stuff down tight enough, or so I've heard.

It sucks living in a world with so many nannys and government interventions, I try ignoring it all and pretend im living in the past and drive older cars,80s/90s but this stuff still upsets me to know they are headed that way.. but for 90% of nee car buyers this means nothing to them, they would trade it in before the warranty/lease expires anyways.

You might want to be careful of what you say while in your car. With today's homeland security takeover, you just never know who is listening and recording!

This piece of legislation feeds well into their needs to know everything.

That's nice. I'll also never own a GM car.

i feel that i should start stocking up on low mile examples of the stuff i like so i can just keep driving 02-06 avalanches and dig out a few more rust free 9-7x's for my wife and just build a big shop to mothball them in. one rots out or hits 250k? get a new one out of storage.

i'm never going to take kindly to the newest stuff. if i can't plug in hptuners and change stuff, i don't want it.

If the government/manufacturers insist on going this way we might have to look into kit cars even closer, if I build it, I own it right?

If the engine fails, is it right to suggest their car has to be repaired by the license holder? berkeleytards are just ruining everything these days, we finally get cars worth owning and now we cant own them.

Remove GM ecu and plug in Megasquirt? Someone will find away around it all, it just takes time, or a carburetor.

Now that the knee jerk reaction and lack of consideration and minimally thought-out blog posts should be over...

This is about software, not hardware.

GM isn't saying you don't own the car, they're saying that you've only licensed the software in the car. And that's true, software isn't a physical thing so you can't "own" it anyhow. Note that having a license doesn't imply updates or maintenance, it simply means you've paid the owner for the use of the software.

It's a big liability issue as far as GM is concerned. In most cases, messing with software can't actually injure anyone. You'll just brick your phone or whatever. But in the case of control systems for a couple of mobile tons of steel filled with flammable liquid and/or high capacity batteries, there's quite a potential risk. And they are highly complex computer systems these days with a lot of interconnection. So how does GM protect themselves from the liability - or, in a less cynical way, how do they protect their customers from poorly modified vehicles, especially as you can't usually tell they've been modified?

Repairing/maintaining the car doesn't require modifying computer code, so it's not going to shut down independent repair shops or prevent you from installing aftermarket replacement parts that don't contain computer code. In the same vein, you can build or modify your own desktop PC without infringing on Microsoft's Windows IP. I suspect there will be a court case that will show that installing aftermarket parts that contain aftermarket software are completely legal as long as they don't modify the GM software. Again, think of swapping different boards into a PC.

But it does affect people like us, who get into the programming in order to change the capabilities of the vehicle. It especially affects the companies that sell plug-in tuners. It's not an easy answer. I don't like overreaching copyright much myself, but GM does have to do something to protect themselves. And with the depth of their pockets, if someone does get hurt in an accident of a car with modified software, they will be a target of litigation. I suspect that's all this is, a pre-emptive strike against the ambulance chasers.

MEGASQUIRT the world. Don't want me to modify the factory ECU? Well guess what? I ripped that piece of E36 M3 out of there and replaced it with something thay doesn't suck.

Factory ECUs are far, far more powerful than Megasquirts are. You know that, right?

I think you've got it wrong Keith, they do want to keep you from maintaining/repairing the car if it involves interfacing with the ECU at all, which would prevent independent repair shops from fixing those problems. The ECU uses a proprietary and obfuscated communication protocol which must be reverse-engineered to interface with the ECU, and that's what they're claiming is a DMCA violation. This is the same problem John Deere owners have been having.

Keith Tanner wrote: Factory ECUs are far, far more powerful than Megasquirts are. You know that, right?

More powerful but usually locked-down so they're less useful.

GameboyRMH wrote: I think you've got it wrong Keith, they do want to keep you from maintaining/repairing the car if it involves interfacing with the ECU at all, which would prevent independent repair shops from fixing those problems. The ECU uses a proprietary and obfuscated communication protocol which must be reverse-engineered to interface with the ECU, and that's what they're claiming is a DMCA violation. This is the same problem John Deere owners have been having.

Where does it say that in anything but opinion articles? It doesn't say you can't talk to the ECU, but that you can't modify the software.

One of the few actual quotes from GM:
"It is our position the software in the vehicle is licensed by the owner of the vehicle," attorney Harry Lightsey said.

As for the factory ECU being locked down, that's exactly what's under discussion. GM doesn't want you to mess with the code, and they've got legitimate reasons for that.

The legal angle they're pursuing implies all of that, but for now let's assume you're right and that out of the goodness of their hearts they won't sue anyone "committing DMCA violations" by simply reading data from the ECU after reverse-engineering the communication protocol.

If you can't write to the ECU there may be problems you can't fix. I know some German cars need some injector calibration values written in when you change injectors, if any GMs need the same thing done, you could only change injectors at a dealership.

ECUs generally store codes in RAM so they're cleared when you pull the battery, but theoretically they could be stored in nonvolatile storage (some sportbike ECUs do this for anti-theft IIRC?). If GM had any ECUs like this, you could only clear codes at a dealership.

Modern USDM cars have TPMS. If this agreement covers the TPMS module (Edit: And assuming GM uses the type where you program the receiver instead of the sensors), you could only change TPMS sensors at a dealership

So at best, this could still prevent 3rd party shops from performing certain repair jobs.

Keith Tanner wrote: This is about software, not hardware.

That's how I read it.

I thought this subject already got argued to death here, but maybe that was on another board.

Keith is correct. As cars are more than ever controlled by computers, and do so many things with them in terms of safety aspects in particular, the potential litigation is rising exponentially. This is their way of covering their butts, and it is not only GM, most all car companies are taking the same stance.

Our company produces items that are essentially control systems for vehicles too, and software is strictly controlled. We do not want anyone touching it, and car companies are the same. The risks are great and I actually see a potential ban on all software modifications sometime in the future for street cars. Especially as self driving cars arrive.

Right or wrong, we are going to be a dying breed in terms of reprogramming our cars.